Regulatory Issues
Prescriber Update Survey Results
Thank you to the 898 doctors and pharmacists (overall 16% response rate) who completed the postal questionnaire which accompanied the April 1998 edition of Prescriber Update, or who were interviewed by the editor. The following is a brief summary of the conclusions drawn from the research.
Doctors and pharmacists want unbiased medicine information. Time constraints and to a lesser extent irrelevancy and the large number of articles, result in only Prescriber Update articles of interest and/or relevance to their practice being read. Most editions are kept but rarely referred to, and few share the publication with others.
Prescriber Update articles have influenced prescribing practices (particularly those of GPs). They have also helped in the recognition of adverse reactions or interactions, and changed the advice given to patients. They have been less influential, however, in prompting the reporting of adverse reactions.
Articles are easy to read and the current format and balance of articles is about right. The most useful articles are ‘Adverse Reactions of Current Concern’ and, to a lesser extent, ‘Recent Changes to Medicines’. The usefulness of other articles is profession-specific. Overall, the list of interchangeable medicines provides the least useful information.
Providing information in the New Zealand context, including actual data and the pharmacological basis for adverse reactions etc. were supported, as well as including medicine cost information. Including references was not considered crucial. New Zealand specialists and New Zealand GPs were the preferred authors.
Though support for electronic distribution was mixed, the majority of respondents will be able to receive Prescriber Update electronically by the end of 1998 and appeared willing to provide their e-mail address. Many wanted to be able to choose between electronic and paper copy, and cited the lack of portability of computers and computer illiteracy as problems. A few were unhappy about computer/printer costs. Subscribing to the publication was not supported but sponsorship, including pharmaceutical company sponsorship, was acceptable (assuming no editorial influence).
PS Had we been continuing with printed copies, we would have investigated using softer paper for the benefit of the many doctors who said they read PU in the only quiet, reflective & private environment available - the toilet!